Did we just declare a financial War on Iran?
 

I just read this and I don't have a lot of time to check up and make sure its legit, but read this (long).

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/mcglynn240308.html

If only the US did the same to Iraq, no unnecessary war.

US did the same to Cuba with decidedly mixed results.

These days it mostly just means if you travel to Cuba (as I did) you take US dollars instead of a travellers cheque raised from a US bank.

Oh and you don't meet Americans there - just Canadians & Europeans. Downside for me, but I got by.
Good point is it's completely untouched by US corporations. In Rome or Luxor you have McDonalds & Starbucks.

We did that to Iraq. Saddam's hold on his government was so tenuous that Operation Desert Fox in 1998 could have been enough to topple his regime. Same financial misery helped make S Africa's apartheid government unstable and made rejection of apartheid (the transition) so much easier and faster. Get rid of some silly laws and sudden things get drastically better?

We know from post invasion interviews that Saddam was fully involved only in maintaining his power. His military was diminishing quickly as was his hold on Iraq. Saddam was making financial deals with enemies everywhere just to stay in power. Sanctions were working. Operation Desert Fox, according to CIA analysts, easily could have been the feather that finished him off. CIA did not realize, until post invasion, how weak Saddam really was due to sanctions.

Instead we chose to use 'big dic' thinking as a solution. Look where that got us.

When was Castro must at risk? When we ignored him. What restored Castro’s popularity? Every time America made military threats. Well, Castro’s brother has just issued a major decree. It is now legal to buy can openers and air conditioners in Cuba. When the Castro regime falls, it will fall hard and final because of those financial strains. Cuba will endorse capitalism probably with a flair and vigor that exceeds end of the Cold War when financial restrains are removed. Change probably will be more dynamic that what happened in Eastern Europe.

Financial sanctions are quite effective. However some of those most important effects are only realized during the transistion. Those sanctions make it impossible for a falling government to recover - a concept called hysteresis.

Actually, last year, Iran started demanding currencies other than the US dollars for their oil. The Japanese are paying in Yen and the Chinese in Euros. Essentially, starting in 2005 and in full force since 2007, Iranian oil has been cut loose from the dollar. This is one of the factors behind the recent spike in oil prices.

The Bush administration's action is at best a weak counterattack against a significant economic blow. Noone is going to be able to force the Chinese to stop paying euros to Iran. Iran is the 4th largest oil producer and exporter in the world. No independent nation is going to stop doing business with them because the US wants them to.

The US produces 8 million barrels a day but uses 20. If the administration had gotten off it's ass in 2001 and addressed the strategic importance of reducing consumption, we wouldn't be doing the political equivalent of crying and stamping our feet in response to Iran and Venezuela, two nations whose oil we may need if Saudi Arabia and Russian oil exports to the US were to falter.

Having oilmen as president and vp can be a bad thing when you are trying to address the problem.

Let's see. We put 10 gallons of gasoline into a car. How many actually do productive work? Between one and two gallons. But George Jr said we cannot innovate - cannot make cars more efficient. For the last decade, he insisted that we must not improve gas mileage standards. George Jr even tried to lower those standards. Only those who hate innovation (ie an MBA) would do that. Even oil men have long complained about some auto industry's fear of innovation.

What was George Jr's (Cheney's) solution? We must produce more oil. We must secure *our* oil (from Project for a New American Century). Ten gallons of gas. Only one or two do productive work. Americans consume more than twice the oil per person compared to any other nation in the world. Those who fear innovation (MBA types) say this is good as proven on spread sheets. It means higher profits (and more money to purchase politician favors). Only one to two gallons. So what is his solution? Produce more oil. Consume more oil.

On this topic I am in complete agreement with TW. In the midst of a single party controlling both Congress and the White House, noone stood up to address the importance of reducing oil consumption. This was part of the administration's "business must know what it's doing and should not be interfered with, even if the results are of strategic importance to the US" policy.

As a result, the first companies with hybrids were Toyota and Honda. Ford had to lease the technology from Toyota and started by putting it into an SUV, not a sedan or coupe.

As of 2006, besides the Ford Escape hybrid, most American cars barely made it past 25 mpg.

Of course, with gas prices rising, these decisions will cause GM and Ford to rightfully fail in the marketplace, after which we as taxpayers will be asked to bail them out. So when the government could have interfered to effect a resolution that was necessary for national security and the economy, nothing was done. But when it comes time to insulate the parties from the results of their bad decisions, we will be there in time with taxpayer supplied money to make sure that the executive's bonuses and pensions are secured.

“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.”


From here. These numbers are from 2006

Despite all the rhetoric about gas prices, Iran declared war on America when it invaded American soil in 1979, taking over the Tehran American Embassy, killing Americans there, and holding the rest hostage and torture.. Our response? Jimmy Carter's lame attempt at a rescue, and weak kneed third party diplomacy. It wasn't GWB and oil men who started and encouraged Islamic Fascism, it was a liberal peanut farmer who showed weakness to bullies. If we had someone like GWB in the white house, instead of a wimp, the revolution probably would never have happened in Iran, and the Islamic terror war against America would never have happened.

Or that war started when America deposed the Iranian government, imposed a government upon the Iranian people, and then provided that government with weapons, support, and money to protect it against the people. Invading an embassy to kidnap its people (without torture) is trivial compared to imposing a government upon an entire nation.

Is this too simplistic? So are those who think the Iranian hostage crisis was anything more than two nations flaying against each other rather than listening. A problem created because each called the other an enemy and then imposed a worst policy of "not talking to an enemy".

Meanwhile, when a nation or a world uses it resources wastefully (does not innovate), then those resources become both scarce and expensive. In oil's case, prices returned to what they once were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir...'%C3%A9tat

Major foreign policy blowback.

I cannot blame the govt for the lack of foresight on the part of the American automotive manufacturers. What did they think, that GWB et al were going to be in office forever? And that they were gonna take care of them past 4 or 8 years? C'mon! Did they believe that their "reign" would never end? Thats a load of crap!
The reality is that, collectively, they were shortsighted and not innovative enough. They didn't plan long term and were AGAIN beaten by more innovative, creative and driven corporations. Isn't that just capitalism at its best? Why is it a bad thing that a better product was made? Or is it just that it wasn't American technology or innovation. Well that really isn't anything new in that industry is it? The Japanese and others have made far superior vehicle than ours for a very long time.

American automakers have been in decline since the seventies. What did GWB have to do with it?

NOTHING - contrary to what some here would lead you to believe.

Everybody thinks that the war is GWB's fault. Yeah, we invaded Iraq under his control, but you would probably do the same thing if one of the most symbolic buildings in america was attacked by terrorists. Besides, I support the war because we need to look further into the future. The middle-east is a HUGE mess, and we are establishing the 1st democracy there. Just think if we do, other counties will overthrow there governments and the middle east will, hopefully be more peaceful. Personally, I think America should just take Iraq for itself.

Sad truth is that those 'so called' Japanese innovations were really developed in America - sitting stifled and unused for up to 10 or 20 years when foreigners finally 'discover' and implemented them.

Classic examples are the Honda CVCC engine of 1980 - developed and stifled in early Ford Motor in early 1960s as the stratified charge engine.

Classic example is the 70 Hp per liter engine found in reliable cars starting about 1992 - ready for production and stifled in 1975 GM.

How to stop American automakers from innovating? Stop EPA air standards and mileage standards from forcing these MBA educated auto executives from innovating. Then things that make America great - ie hybrid and electric power trains using 1938 railroad technology - can remain stifled.

Government gave GM something like $100 million in 1994 to build a hybrid. What happened to that money? Well GM was only four hours away from bankruptcy in 1991. That money probably came in real handy to keep executive bonuses coming - corporate welfare.

It's scary to think this would be a product of the American education system.

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 11 September.

2) Democracies imposed on other nations just don't ceate stability. The nation must first want and earn its democracy.

3) The only form of government that works is the one that the locals choose; not the one imposed by outsiders from the other side of the world.

Wow.

What a concise and effective post. I'm so proud, I think I'm tearing up a little bit.

readable too - I knew he had it in him/her.

1) Ok, I admit I was wrong...
2) Iraq DOES want democracy. Didn't you see all the happy people with the purple ink?
3) But do you think a country would be more stable if it were a democracy? Would you want a leader to force himself into power, hog up all the wealth of the country, and put wealthy people in the high ranking government positions instead of smart, highly educated people that know what they are doing?
4) Everyone that thinks Bush is a bad president. Well, his dad was a great president, he got to learn first-hand how to run the country. Trust me, Bush knows what he is doing better than almost everybody in the U.S.

And America wants to kill all negros, Jews, and homosexuals.
http://www.law.du.edu/jenkins/images/kkk.gif

I'm sure a large amount of people in Iraq do want democracy. I wouldn't even be surprised if the majority of people in Iraq want a democracy, but democracy does not work well in non-homogeneous populations. You can see that in almost every African and Middle Eastern country. Not only that, the democracy would be a western-run democracy, something that may not be as popular in Iraq and will be seen as imperialistic.

Possibly, but not necessarily. If the Iraqi people rose up and gave themselves democracy, then I would have confidence that you are right but we had to invade them, which probably means a puppet or revolutionary ruler will pop up, which doesn't guarantee safety.

And what makes you think that any democracy has smart people that know what they are doing in power....

Yes, that is why monarchies are such a good idea...

Bush messed up on many fronts. We have multiple threads on actions of our president and I'm sure tw could write you a goddamn book on why Bush is a bad president.

I don't think so.

I'm glad you said it.

So you know more about running the country than Bush?

Almost certainly. But my point was more along the lines of not trusting you because you already showed that you don't know what you are talking about when you implied that Iraq was behind 9/11. Also, your statement that Iraq wants a democracy seems like quite a stretch. I think each ethnic/religious group wants to be in power and doesn't give a shit about democracy (which is power sharing.)

He does know more about running the country than bush. Bushes are hard to run, they pretty much just grow, bloom, go dormant, and repeat it all again the next year.

But, he saw the purple fingers!

I hate this argument.

I personally believe that John Madden is a bad sports announcer. Could I do a better job? No, of course not and if he actually was an absolutely horrible sports announcer he would never have gotten the job in the first place. But, I believe that many other people can announce better than him so to that professional standard, I would consider him bad.

In the same way, do I think I can run the United States better than Bush? Probably not, but I can say that there are many other people that are able to. Unfortunately, many of these people run businesses, teach, and sometimes are even working class. A flaw I see with American politics is that the best leader will not necessarily get elected, but what leader can get the greatest number of votes. Some will sell their soul to the devil (Hilary), some will lie (every politician), and others are extremely charismatic (Obama), but having one or many of those characteristics does not guarantee a good leader.

pierce don't sell yourself short; you can be a better president than W. And I hardly know you.

And the one with the most votes does not necessarily win, which we painfully learn in 200.

you're absolutly right, but obviously people didn't see my use of the word ALMOST.

Less stability too often happens when government is imposed on the nation. Stable only while the 'dictatorship' is imposed.

Was the government of S Vietnam a democracy? Hardly. Another example of corrupt government imposed on the people by outside forces. Once outside forces and corrupt government was removed, the country went through painful adjustment and became prosperous.

In Iraq, how many governments were propped up by Americans? Maliki is simply (what?) the fourth imposed American government. George Jr learned nothing from his father. In fact, many vocal critics of "Mission Accomplished" are George Sr's closest friends.

George Sr was asked why he does not advise his son. He wanted to let his son be his own man; make his own decisions. But George Sr never trusted people such as Rumsfeld and blames them (without listing specific names) for George Jr's problems.

Who did George Jr consult before invading Iraq? He listed only two - Cheney and god. Don't fool yourself. George Sr is never consulted by George Jr. Worse, when George Jr does make a decision (ie submitting Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court), then Cheney leaves George Jr embarrassingly hanging. These techniques are how Cheney keeps George Jr in line.

George Jr learned nothing from his father except by participating in his presidential campaign. George Jr was chosen by founding members of PNAC to be their figure head. Cheney makes the decision. If doubtful, well, both Powell and Sec of Treasury O'Neill state same.

Adding my voice to the chorus! Bravo!

Wow! You were around back then? I thought I was old!

So Detroit's decline has nothing to do with union excesses?

George Bush

Er I meant 2000.

Did you even work in a US auto plant? I did. Sometimes company engineers could not do something. They had to get permission from bosses who did not even know what engineers do. So I would find a union guy. We fixed it anyway.

Why do some blame the unions? That boss has no idea how things get done - so blames the union workers for all messes. Remember when AT&T wiped out all long distance telephone service to NYC? Robert Allen was on TV by 4 PM blaming the union workers. Union workers were at a training session. Management was running the switching station, disconnected power, and wiped out all NYC long distance. So who really created the failure? Management that did not understand that warning from the union rep and let the problem fester. Same management that was so business school educated as to create the power loss and then blame the unions. It usually works that way. 85% of all problems are ....

spudcon - your posts repeatedly reflect a political agenda. That means you know something but do not know the underlying facts and numbers. One classic example is contempt for the American blue collar worker - ie unions are evil. Go work with these guys. Learn why failures happen. Learn from the man who taught the Japanese how to be so productive and to have quality - W. E. Deming. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. These same people murdered seven Challenger astronauts and then did same to seven Columbia astronauts. Don't believe me? Read the CAIB (Columbia Accident Investigation Board) report. Please learn from reality and stop listening to propaganda from political agendas.

A GM car cost more to build than a Mercedes Benz (comparatively equipped). Did you learn this? Did you learn why? So tell me. How many man-hours does it take to make every part from scratch? That means putting every thread on every bolt. Wind every electric motor. If unions are the problem, then you can tell me how many man-hours are required to build one car. As you answer this and following questions, then we will move from a political agenda to reality.

Please notice - I don't know these things only because I am told. Learn as I did. If unions were the problem, then answers to these questions are known and prove your point. Begin with basic knowledge, 'how many man-hours to assemble a car from scratch?'

42 - what did I win?

Nope, never been to Detroit. I have been a member of two unions tho, (Teamsters and machinists union) so I have experience with unions. It doesn't matter if you're making cars or widgets, union attitudes are as elitist as you think management is. They think they should be in charge of the factories, and then we would all be working in Utopia. My experience with union meetings and union leaders is they talk big, swear a lot, take the dues, and try to tell members how to vote.
Even a boss I once had who was a total jerk treated me better than any union.
As for engineers having to get permission from management to do something, where I worked, the union would not allow any engineer to lift any tool. They had to call in a union guy to tighten a screw some union guy left loose.
Sorry TW, you're the one with the agenda.

which somehow makes you an expert? Hardly. You see thing in good vs evil. Made more obvious because you never state underlying reasons why AND have an obvious distaste for doing so.

History is chock full of adversarial unions only created by adversarial management. One of the greatest examples was Henry Ford who suddenly realized this mistake, fired his Pinkerton Guards, stopped blaming the unions, and suddenly had no more strikes are more profitable plants.

How did Japan that suffered country wide union riots in the 1950s and 60s suddenly end this strife? Eventually all Japanese management learned the concepts of W E Deming where bosses work for the employees. Since employees were now making decisions, no more unions problems AND more productive companies.

It is a common problem among extremist who only see things as 'good or evil'. "Unions are evil", says Spudcon. It works only when you have a conclusion and don't even bother to first learn the whys. Spudcon - you don't even know who Deming is and yet know you are right. How sorry is that? Sorry enough to meet the definition of political extremist.

You saw a confrontational union? With your attitude, I am surprised they did not beat you up? Meanwhile, Chrysler has had no strikes since Lee Iacocca replace adversarial Townsend and Richardo - except in one plant. A Chrysler plant in IN struck for eight hours once. Clearly greed must have been apparent. Why? Workers wanted more work. The company obliged. No more disgruntled union workers. But Spudcon knows this could not be. Evil must be lurking somewhere in that union.

We also know Iran is evil. After all, their reform movement died completely as soon as George Jr declared them as an axis of evil. That proves Iran always was evil. The world according to Spudcon. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Spudcon knows. But he does not even know who Deming is. No problem. Such facts are only details - get in the way of knowing.

The biggest problem with unions is the same problem with the country. 99% of the people don't want to get actively involved, let someone else do it.
Just pay your dues/taxes, maybe vote for the lesser of two evils running for office, bitch about the leadership, but don't bother doing the work to make it better.

Because I don't know who Deming is makes me an extremist? Sorry, I was only speaking from personal experience, not someone else's theories.

Spud, as you spend time in the Cellar, you will see more and more clearly that trying to talk sense to tw is to attempt to deal rationally with a crazyman. He is impervious. He also can get very carried away on theoreticals. It's so unrewarding that I doubt the man has a single friend, either in the Cellar or in 3D-space.

Thank God I live in a right to work state. No unions.

So the massa can continue to abuse the peons.

We got no massa down here. Long gone. Other RTW states, plenty from the North:

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

Alabama
Arizona - (established by state's Constitution, not by statute)
Arkansas - (established by state's Constitution, not by statute)
Florida - (established by state's Constitution, not by statute)
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma - (established by state's Constitution, not by statute)
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming
The territory of Guam also has right-to-work laws.

Right to work states don't mean the workers can't form a union. It means if the majority of the employees choose to do so, an individual can opt out of membership and paying dues.
The people that choose to opt out, still receive the union won benefits, and in most cases the union's protection from unfair labor practices.

Yea, and people don't have to put up with the strong arm tactics of unions controlling their money and job sites.

No, they could go back to Henry Ford's strong arm goons... and unsafe working condition that killed thousands every year.

Being a right-to-work state also means they can fire you for any reason or no reason, as long as it isn't blatantly discriminatory. This is quite useful for firing people who just suck at their jobs, but aren't necessarily grossly negligent.

Certainly a double edged sword. One I can live with. We have a Union at our place of work. They do a good job of protecting the workers.

It's also handy for getting rid of people they would like to replace, with people that will work for less. Or to make room for a lodge buddy's nephew. Or to dump that chick before she gets pregnant. Or replace that guy that lost an arm in the unguarded machinery, with a two armed guy that can mow the bosses lawn, on his own time, in order to keep his job.

That's what the Stupid Left would want you to believe, Bruce, yes. "Massa," quotha.

I generally frustrate the Stupid Left, of course. It's the good thing to do.

Business is business.

And it doesn't care about treating people fairly or ethically, so they have to demand it. Both employees and customers.

Again, Bruce -- that is what the Stupid Left wants you to believe. Can you stop being their tool? I can and have. You succeed better in business by caring about treating people ethically and fairly. No less do I.

Horseshit, I've seen it too many times. I've even been on the receiving end myself. Businesses treat their employees no better than the current prevailing working conditions in the area, as determined by middle management. The welfare of the peons is a low priority on the spreadsheets.

I've been on both sides of this issue. Union state/right to work state, Union/management. I grew up in a UAW town and remember guys getting beat with bats for trying to cross the line during a strike. Each and every option has pros and cons for employer AND employee.

In my old life as union guy and back up steward I know the wonders of the Union. Thanks for the weekend thing, the better pay, benefits, etc. I also know the shitty side - completely worthless employee gets to keep job because of union protection. Single mother willing to work 2nd shift job to help company and her family, but unable to because of seniority issue.

As a manager I had to play by the rules too. Keeping said shitty employee even though EVERYONE knew we were better off without him. Unable to fire employee for 8 freaking months until case was airtight and unassailable by union or lawyers. But it was nice not having to worry about job assignments since the Union had the bid process spelled out in detail. It usually worked out well.

Unions were absolutely vital in bringing about change in the workplace. They are vital in keeping the i's dotted and t's crossed. They are also culpable in the downfall of the US auto industry among others. The excesses of the '70's and '80's still are not fully realized. They are guilty of being too shortsighted as they are political machines with leadership mainly concerned with keeping their leadership. They sell future workers out for the sake of short term gains.

As with all things there are two sides to every story and they are both valid.

My Dad was on the contractors side of the table, negotiating with the plumbers Union, although he was a dues paying, non-voting, member of that union.
He complained the contractors always gave in too easily, because they figured they were all paying the same rate, and the profits were usually figured as a percentage of the total cost of doing the job. The higher the cost, the higher the profit.

The Automobile companies, pre-foreign competition, were probably the same way. Then when they had to compete, they told the unions, we'll give you a little money now, but we'll take care of you when you retire, which the unions accepted. Remember, the highest paid autoworkers are in Europe, plus they get socialized health care.

But instead of funding the promises, and making capital improvements for better efficiency, the car makers blew their profits on bloated middle management, golden parachutes and phony spreadsheets for wall street.
Now they are telling the unions, uh, so sorry, we can't keep the promises those rich retired guys made.

Like I said before